Where now for the U.S. Supreme Court?
Democrats have no one but themselves to blame for the use of the so-called nuclear option that allowed Republicans to break a Democratic filibuster of Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch [“Gorsuch sworn in,” News, April 11].
Former Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid changed the rules in 2013, obliterating the filibuster for all presidential nominees except Supreme Court justices. This year, Republicans responded in kind. Had Reid not done that, Gorsuch would not have just been confirmed as a U.S. Supreme Court justice.
On the other hand, had Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell not abused his discretion a year ago and refused to set a hearing for Merrick Garland, Gorsuch would not just have been confirmed as a Supreme Court justice.
Maybe it’s time to throw the baby out with the bathwater, get rid of all the current members of Congress and start anew.
It’s a shame there isn’t a nuclear option for that.
Michael Fried, Cedarhurst
President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch said during his questioning by the Senate Judiciary Committee that judges listen to arguments and consider both sides. They use their knowledge of the law to reach decisions, and a good judge is impartial and makes decision based on the merits of the case.
That may sound good, but it isn’t true. For the past 40 years or so, the decisions of judges in most cases were predictable before any argument was ever heard. Justices are selected based on their past decisions and how they’re expected to decide. It would be nice to think that they would be open-minded and fair.
For example, Judge Clarence Thomas almost always rules conservatively. That’s why President George H.W. Bush nominated him in 1991. He had a history of conservative decisions. Hopefully, Gorsuch’s words to the Senate committee were not just rhetoric.
Michael Shapiro, Merrick